W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: HTTP Header Compaction Results

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:52:12 +1300
Message-ID: <50890BCC.2030600@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 25/10/2012 9:13 p.m., RUELLAN Herve wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com]
>> Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2012 21:44
>> To: Mark Nottingham
>> Cc: Patrick McManus; Roberto Peon; Amos Jeffries; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: HTTP Header Compaction Results
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 	On 25/10/2012, at 5:00 AM, Patrick McManus
>> <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> 	>
>> 	> for reference https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
>> US/docs/NSS_Key_Log_Format
>>
>> 	Thanks; I looked for that before, but couldn't find it. Should have
>> asked.
>>
>> 	I agree that the logs should be 'raw'; we can always post-process (as
>> long as we do it in a uniform manner :)
>>
>> 	How would people prefer to store them? I've been storing them as
>> just text files, one per direction per stream (e.g., "response headers on this
>> connection to 1.2.3.4"), with header blocks delimited by a blank line.
>> However, IIRC someone mentioned HAR as well -- any preferences?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> text files would work just fine.
> I agree that text files are OK.
>
> HAR could also work, but are somewhat more complex to process. Moreover I think it's easier to write a HAR to text files translator than the reverse.

Since the traffic is arriving in HTTP text format to produce a HAR file 
one needs to write such a translator and apply it on the data stream. 
Producing a .txt can be just a packet buffer dump.

Amos
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 09:52:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 October 2012 09:52:49 GMT